Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Martin Kristiansen on November 12, 2019, 08:12:08 pm
-
https://petapixel.com/2019/11/12/nikon-says-its-cameras-need-to-justify-their-existence-as-a-business/
I am not a frequent reader of this website but stumbled across this during a bout of insomnia. I hope it’s not as serious as is being reported and if it is hope the company can turn things around. Tough times for the photo industry in general but I think Nikon have made and continue to make errors in certain areas. But hey, what do I know about running a big business, nothing really.
Have also come across a few disturbing articles indicating Olympus may shut down their camera division.
-
Lots of clickbait lately... always falling is the sky...
-
In general I think the camera makers have two problems...
1 the camera in the phones have become so good, no amateur camera is needed.
also you can send directly what you made to friends...
2 The hobbiest and pro camera's are so good, the need to buy a new camera is not so high anymore.
Also the extra megapixels are often not much needed considering most of the photos will be shown on TV's and the web.
-
In the analogue days i bought a camera every 10 years;
In the beginning of the digital camera age every 3 year quality made a jump.
I think that blooming period is ending now.
I think we go back to about a camera in 5 years.. or so...
-
Pieter's comment mirrors what I think about all this. Both my wife and I have Pixel phones which have excellent cameras in them. One can make prints up to 13x19 using LR's up-rez algorithm. I have been trying out Gigapixel AI recently but have not seen how it might work on cell phone shots. It just might be that the quality would be even better. Certainly all those people who just rely on social media for photo display really don't need much more than that.
I had a Nikon SLR that I bought in the mid-1970s which served me well until the digital age. I've had four digital Nikons of increasing pixel capacity until moving to the Z6 earlier this year. I'm not sure that I will need anything more than that going forward as the biggest I print is 17x25.
-
Pieter,
I mostly agree, but would tweak one word:
In general I think the camera makers have two problems...
1. the camera in the phones have become so good, no amateur camera is needed.
"Amateur" covers a lot of ground; I would say that most "casual" or "snapshot" photographers are now satisfied with phone-cameras, but there are plenty of true amateurs (lovers of photography as opposed to mere likers of photographs) who are poorly served by any phone camera and instead well-served by an interchangeable lens camera with a couple of lenses—and a lot of them prefer to do it for under US$2000 for that kit, and without much agonizing over post-processing. Phones are eating away dedicated camera alternatives from the bottom, up to what used to be done with an SLR and only the 3x kit zoom lens it came with.
Back to Nikon; it is a decline similar to what the industry as a whole is experiencing, perhaps exacerbated in Nikon's case by some poor planning and predictions, but hardly a death spiral. For one thing I expect the shift to mirrorless to pick-up pace over the next few years, leading to improving sales of the Z system; it is to be expected that a major transition like this has some extra costs and pains. Sony lost money for some years while it built its ILC system from what it had acquired from Konica-Minolta.
Remember when Canon was well ahead with its CMOS sensors vs everyone else's CCDs? There were of course predictions that no other brand would catch up to the Canon CMOS sensor juggernaut. And before that, a growing dominance of the Canon and Nikon duopoly over all others (Konica-Minolta, Olympus and Pentax back then) was often predicted. But things change ...
-
Pieter,
I mostly agree, but would tweak one word:"Amateur" covers a lot of ground; I would say that most "casual" or "snapshot" photographers are now satisfied with phone-cameras, but there are plenty of true amateurs (lovers of photography as opposed to mere likers of photographs) who are poorly served by any phone camera and instead well-served by an interchangeable lens camera with a couple of lenses—and a lot of them prefer to do it for under US$2000 for that kit, and without much agonizing over post-processing. Phones are eating away dedicated camera alternatives from the bottom, up to what used to be done with an SLR and only the 3x kit zoom lens it came with.
You are right of coarse- my bad- i often say the only difference between an amateur and a pro is only that the latter earns money...
-
Personally having a d850 ; i have enough pixels, good enough dynamic range and colour, but some lenses might be a little better... and for me it is important to have a silent shutter... so at some point i jump to mirrorless... Having said the weakest link is me.
and Yes the camera makers see their sales declining, but at the beginning of the digital era i am sure they did very good business... far better than in the film years before ...
The chemical companies had the real problem, like Kodak, Agfa and Ilford.
-
This doesn't look good, but there are good news within the story.
The main one being that Nikon is doing good in the high end, which is the only segment that is going to survive.
Now, Nikon has been executing very poorly on many accounts unrelated to the quality of the equipment they deliver.
I would personnally disagree that their financial loss is the result of smart phones success. Their financial loss is the result of how they have dealt with the situation. They could have executed much better and come out stronger.
Thom Hogan has written an excellent article on this: http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/november-2019-nikon-canon/followup-on-nikons-financia.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It’s a bit sad that there projections for the Z range of cameras have not been met. Disturbing and disappointing. Nice cameras.
-
The uptake rate of the Z system has, undoubtably, been stunted by lens availability. Folks like me, without F mount lenses, have to wait to see the Z lenses get delivered and tested before deciding whether this mount/system is where to invest. At this point, although Nikon has the lead in haptics and ergonomics, menus and compression, and a couple of outstanding Z lenses, Sony is still a "safer" investment bet due to the amazing range of Sony and third-party lenses. Nikon should have opened the Z mount to Zeiss and others from the get go. A few lost lens sales up front would have been a small price to pay for a wider adoption of the lens mount and the long term commitment that adoption entails.
-
The uptake rate of the Z system has, undoubtably, been stunted by lens availability. Folks like me, without F mount lenses, have to wait to see the Z lenses get delivered and tested before deciding whether this mount/system is where to invest. At this point, although Nikon has the lead in haptics and ergonomics, menus and compression, and a couple of outstanding Z lenses, Sony is still a "safer" investment bet due to the amazing range of Sony and third-party lenses. Nikon should have opened the Z mount to Zeiss and others from the get go. A few lost lens sales up front would have been a small price to pay for a wider adoption of the lens mount and the long term commitment that adoption entails.
+1
I agree they better opened up the lens mount to others. It would seriously make me think about a future camera if i can only use S-lenses and nothing else.
Also they should make TS-adapters for the F bajonet. After the pixelrace it will go about other things.
-
I'll be surprised in Nikon pull out of the market but then again who'd make camera kit these days? There doesn't seem to be any money in it unless you're a niche player or using it as a loss leader shop window to sell something else. Maybe at some point the leading camera brands of the past will be Leica like entities, if they survive at all, unless there's some upturn due to some disruptive technology that'll drive sales and profits back up but would that be likely to come from Nikon? I'd guess that any disruptive and profitable new tech is more likely to come from one of the large electronic companies or some new player.
I wouldn't blame Nikon quality or the lack of lenses for their poor mirrorless sales. I think it's down to them being too late to the market and coming out with a "Me too" range of bodies as for me there doesn't seem to be any real appeal except for those with a bag full of Nikon lenses and of course those who only see the badge and simply must have a Nikon and those two categories wont sustain them.
Being late to the market may only just put off the inevitable though as even mirrorless as it is now can't bring back the glory days. The market is still shrinking and even if they'd brought out a best in class system they'd still be looking at a temporary blip in an market showing one general trend, downwards.
-
I think it's down to them being too late to the market and coming out with a "Me too" range of bodies as for me there doesn't seem to be any real appeal except for those with a bag full of Nikon lenses and of course those who only see the badge and simply must have a Nikon and those two categories wont sustain them.
The appeals I see with the Z system:
- most of the S lenses are simply outstanding and include at least one piece of glass nobody else has (the Noct). Nobody else does super high quality f1.8 glass accross the various focal lengths
- the viewfinder is more pleasant that the higher res a7R IV I have started to use
- the size is compact but the ergonomics of the body are great
- IBIS works great
- colors are great and so is the AWB
- it's fully waterproofed
- you can adapt any lens on it, including the Sony E lenses so it's the closest thing to a universal lens carrier
- there is zero sensor dirt issue (that can't be said of the Sony bodies)
- video works great, in particular video AF
The only thing that's clearly not close to best in class is the AF on moving subjects, but it's still completely usable. I got a high rate of keepers with the Z6 and the 200mm f2.0.
So all it would take to Nikon to have the best range of mirrorless bodies is improved AF, and the good news is that they have been the best in AF in the DSLR era, so they already have the algos... and a second memory slot.
I am not sure that a body that close to being the best can really be called me too. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The appeals I see with the Z system:
- most of the S lenses are simply outstanding and include at least one piece of glass nobody else has (the Noct). Nobody else does super high quality f1.8 glass accross the various focal lengths
- the viewfinder is more pleasant that the higher res a7R IV I have started to use
- the size is compact but the ergonomics of the body are great
- IBIS works great
- colors are great and so is the AWB
- it's fully waterproofed
- you can adapt any lens on it, including the Sony E lenses so it's the closest thing to a universal lens carrier
- there is zero sensor dirt issue (that can't be said of the Sony bodies)
- video works great, in particular video AF
The only thing that's clearly not close to best in class is the AF on moving subjects, but it's still completely usable. I got a high rate of keepers with the Z6 and the 200mm f2.0.
So all it would take to Nikon to have the best range of mirrorless bodies is improved AF, and the good news is that they have been the best in AF in the DSLR era, so they already have the algos... and a second memory slot.
I am not sure that a body that close to being the best can really be called me too. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
And yet this class leading camera comes in 20th on the Amazon mirrorless camera sales list. That's the problem...some people might think the Nikon cameras are class leading...yet others just are not buying them as can be see on Amazon and the disappointment of not meeting sales projections at Nikon.
-
And yet this class leading camera comes in 20th on the Amazon mirrorless camera sales list. That's the problem...some people might think the Nikon cameras are class leading...yet others just are not buying them as can be see on Amazon and the disappointment of not meeting sales projections at Nikon.
Every Nikon camera should come with a "Bernard's Seal of Approval." ;)
-
And yet this class leading camera comes in 20th on the Amazon mirrorless camera sales list. That's the problem...some people might think the Nikon cameras are class leading...yet others just are not buying them as can be see on Amazon and the disappointment of not meeting sales projections at Nikon.
Yes, but ten of those cameras are sub $1,000 cameras -- not in Nikon's class. I think only four of them cost more than Nikon, which means that price is probably important. Not saying that Nikon is dong great with these things, but the Amazon sales list is not really where you'd want to look for serious photographers -- B&H or Samys would be much more likely sources in the US.
-
Yes, but ten of those cameras are sub $1,000 cameras -- not in Nikon's class. I think only four of them cost more than Nikon, which means that price is probably important. Not saying that Nikon is dong great with these things, but the Amazon sales list is not really where you'd want to look for serious photographers -- B&H or Samys would be much more likely sources in the US.
Sure...but that might be some of the problems resulting in the continuous revenue and market share drop at Nikon. There still seems to be a market for the $1,000 camera out there as can be seen by the sales at Amazon. I just can't see too many new photographers waking up one day and saying I want a "real" camera and be ready to drop thousands of dollars.
Actually half of those top 20 camera sales were greater than $1,000...so yes right at the budget of the Z6 that is 20th on the list.
-
I was surprised when Nikon initially launched its "future of the imaging division" Z system only in the higher price, lower unit sales, lower revenue, hopefully higher margin sector of 35mm format: notwithstanding predictions for the future, the current reality is that Nikon's revenue leaders are still the lowest priced DX mount models, and industry-wide, 35mm format revenues are far smaller than for the smaller ILC formats.
But at least the Z50 is out now, and I will not debate whether a top-down roll-out can be a good long-term strategy.
With that initial approach, and with all the R&D costs of the Z system to cover, it was completely predictable that for now, profits would dive, and that unit sales of the new 35mm format gear would not come close to offsetting the general decline in the far higher volume APS-C sector. But I have hope that this will turn around somewhat, as EVF cameras continue to increase their share of the ILC market, and the Z-system expands, with more lenses and with the volume of DX-Z body and lens sales.
BTW, DPReview has an article on the financials for Canon, Nikon and Sony over the last two quarters: https://www.dpreview.com/news/3735695524/a-closer-look-into-the-latest-financial-reports-from-canon-nikon-and-sony
-
Every Nikon camera should come with a "Bernard's Seal of Approval." ;)
At least have I used the cameras I am commenting about... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And yet this class leading camera comes in 20th on the Amazon mirrorless camera sales list. That's the problem...some people might think the Nikon cameras are class leading...yet others just are not buying them as can be see on Amazon and the disappointment of not meeting sales projections at Nikon.
Yup. I read on another site that someone had looked at Amazon sales and worked out that the Sony A7III is outselling the Nikon Z range 30-1. If that's anywhere near true Nikon must be at least concerned and no, I don't think that the Nikon system is best in class at everything except AF on moving subjects or at least it's not being perceived as the best system, it's being perceived as a me too system that's late to market and lacking in a couple of areas that some see as key.
Oh and the f0.95 is no doubt nice but IMO an irrelevance. Give me the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 every time.
Good luck to Nikon but they're in a contracting market and in the short term with a product that isn't selling well enough. They have a lot of thinking to do as maybe do they all in the longer term.
-
Oh and the f0.95 is no doubt nice but IMO an irrelevance. Give me the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 every time.
The Zeiss 55mm f1.8 is a great lens, but the Nikon 50mm f1.8 S tops it in most ways.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Initial issues with some z series cameras relating to IBIS, the peeling off of the rubbles finish, lack of a second card slot have hampered the uptake of this camera locally. Like it or not people are also not fond of adapted lenses and the slow roll out of native glass remains an issue. The Noct is undoubtedly and amazing feat of optical engineering but perhaps resources would have been better deployed to produce a native 70 to 200.
I don’t have it in for Nikon in any way but something has caused the price of the Z series to fall and still not meet Nikons own sales expectations. The above issues come up when I talk to people locally.
-
Initial issues with some z series cameras relating to IBIS, the peeling off of the rubbles finish, lack of a second card slot have hampered the uptake of this camera locally.
IBIS issues?
Never heard of those. I have certainly never experienced any myself, but I also haven't heard of any in the many forums I roam. ;)
The 70-200mm f2.8 is rumored to be released any time soon, so it doesn't look that Nikon made a choice between the Noct and that lens. What is missing from the Nikon roadmap is a 70-200mm f4 that collapses.
Considering that the F version is still the best 70-200mm f2.8 on the market by a good margin, there is little doubt that the S version will be in a class of its own.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
IBIS issues?
Never heard of those. I have certainly never experienced any myself, but I also haven't heard of any in the many forums I roam. ;)
The 70-200mm f2.8 is rumored to be released any time soon, so it doesn't look that Nikon made a choice between the Noct and that lens. What is missing from the Nikon roadmap is a 70-200mm f4 that collapses.
Considering that the F version is still the best 70-200mm f2.8 on the market by a good margin, there is little doubt that the S version will be in a class of its own.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard...seems like everything Nikon touches is gold...a class in its own...yet sales keep plummeting and not meeting expectations. Something is not lining up IMHO.
-
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/service-and-support/service-advisories/technical-service-advisory-for-users-of-the-nikon-z-6-and-z-7-cameras.html
There you go Bernard. Surprised you never came across this. Had a friend with this issue.
-
Bernard...seems like everything Nikon touches is gold...a class in its own...yet sales keep plummeting and not meeting expectations. Something is not lining up IMHO.
I don’t understand why you see these 2 statements as incompatible.
Nor why, as a Sony user, you care that much about the financial health of Nikon or about how great a system the Z is.
I personally use both and am objective about their strengths and weaknesses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Sony vultures are circling, rubbing their wings with glee.
;-)
-
I don’t understand why you see these 2 statements as incompatible.
Nor why, as a Sony user, you care that much about the financial health of Nikon or about how great a system the Z is.
I personally use both and am objective about their strengths and weaknesses.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm interested in photography in general and like following how the industry is managing this decline. I don't care about the Z system...just amused with your "class leading" comments on just about anything Nikon releases. That to me just sounds fanboish.
-
I keep an eye on a lot of camera companies. Fuji and Nikon mostly but also Canon, Leica, Olympus and Phase. I would be saddened to see any of them fail. I used Canon the most over the years but Nikons failure would be the most upsetting to me. At the moment my needs are best served by Sony for reasons I couldn’t be bothered to go into.
So vultures circling seems a little dramatic and inaccurate.
-
Seems to me, only the craziest (buyers and companies) will survive in the future. Look at the Canon's new lineup: all are $3,000 lenses with crazy f/stops: 1.0, 1.2 etc. 18mm f/1.0 and 25mm f/1.2! Who the hack needs those!? And can afford?
-
Seems to me, only the craziest (buyers and companies) will survive in the future. Look at the Canon's new lineup: all are $3,000 lenses with crazy f/stops: 1.0, 1.2 etc. 18mm f/1.0 and 25mm f/1.2! Who the hack needs those!? And can afford?
Aren’t you confusing patents and line-up?
If they were the same we would have had 100mp canon cameras for many many years.
Canon has been using patents publication as a marketing tool.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm interested in photography in general and like following how the industry is managing this decline. I don't care about the Z system...just amused with your "class leading" comments on just about anything Nikon releases. That to me just sounds fanboish.
My class leading comments are far from covering everything Nikon does.
They are targeted at aspects where Nikon is best in class based on objective reports or my own comparisons.
Since you have never shot with a Nikon Z I have no idea how you would know these aspects are not best in class.
I fully acknowledge the superiority of Sony in some areas. The one domain where it’s clear is eye AF and it’s the sole reason why I have added some Sony bodies to my line up.
But even there, although it is clearly better, it’s far from being the holy grail Sony fan clubs makes it to be.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My class leading comments are far from covering everything Nikon does.
They are targeted at aspects where Nikon is best in class based on objective reports or my own comparisons.
Since you have never shot with a Nikon Z I have no idea how you would know these aspects are not best in class.
I fully acknowledge the superiority of Sony in some areas. The one domain where it’s clear is eye AF and it’s the sole reason why I have added some Sony bodies to my line up.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm not talking about the Z system...but your continuous view of their class leading equipment. Seems at odds that something that is class leading is losing in sales and Nikon needing to drop the prices to get some interest. If things were truly class leading...surely Nikon would not need to put on a fire sale.
-
I'm not talking about the Z system...but your continuous view of their class leading equipment. Seems at odds that something that is class leading is losing in sales and Nikon needing to drop the prices to get some interest. If things were truly class leading...surely Nikon would not need to put on a fire sale.
I don’t have consistent views about Nikon’s class leading equipment. That’s a myth you have created. I have always been very specific and rarely proven wrong.
It seems hard to have an adult conversation with you.
Your points as so riddled with contradictions and lack of logic that I’ll stop here.
Be happy in your little Sony world. I’ll continue to use whatever brand works for me based on the objective strengths of each system.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t have consistent views about Nikon’s class leading equipment. That’s a myth you have created. I have always been very specific and rarely proven wrong.
It seems it is not a myth he created but a reality you have admitted to:
Even I, the worst Nikon fanboy on the whole internet, am 10 times more objective about Nikon’s weaknesses than you are about Trump. ;)
-
It seems it is not a myth he created but a reality you have admitted to:
I am sure you can tell the difference between a second degree joke and the dark and idiotic fanboism of chez.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/service-and-support/service-advisories/technical-service-advisory-for-users-of-the-nikon-z-6-and-z-7-cameras.html
There you go Bernard. Surprised you never came across this. Had a friend with this issue.
Thanks, I was not aware.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t have consistent views about Nikon’s class leading equipment. That’s a myth you have created. I have always been very specific and rarely proven wrong.
It seems hard to have an adult conversation with you.
Your points as so riddled with contradictions and lack of logic that I’ll stop here.
Be happy in your little Sony world. I’ll continue to use whatever brand works for me based on the objective strengths of each system.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I'm just calling them as I see them. Have you any idea how many times you said "class leading" when talking about Nikon?
Oh...and I also shoot with Canon, Fuji and Tachihara equipment...all "class leading" in their own ways.
-
Bernard, I'm just calling them as I see them. Have you any idea how many times you said "class leading" when talking about Nikon?
Oh...and I also shoot with Canon, Fuji and Tachihara equipment...all "class leading" in their own ways.
The only way Tachihara is class leading is on price. But the owner is a very fine gentlemen that I once met in Tokyo many years ago.
According to every other metric than price, his competent caneras fall behind the now out of business Ebony. Out of business because the adorable daughter of the owner didn’t want to take over when her father decided to retire at 70. Yes, I know them too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, I'm just calling them as I see them. Have you any idea how many times you said "class leading" when talking about Nikon?
About Nikon as a whole? Not a single time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Seems at odds that something that is class leading is losing in sales...
Not odd at all. Being “class leading” in technical sense doesn’t necessarily translate into sales, which are a function of multiple possible factors, one of which might be that majority of people do not know or care about “class leading.” Economic history is littered with examples of companies having a technically superior product, yet losing the market.
-
Not odd at all. Being “class leading” in technical sense doesn’t necessarily translate into sales, which are a function of multiple possible factors, one of which might be that majority of people do not know or care about “class leading.” Economic history is littered with examples of companies having a technically superior product, yet losing the market.
Exactly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree with Bernard about the viewfinders. Having used both the Z7 and the AR7IV, the Nikon viewfinder is still the most comfortable and natural. Between that and the ergonomics, the Nikon wins my heart. The Sony, particularly with the Voigtländer and Loxia lenses still wins my head. Third party adapters that have to reverse engineer the Z mount connections don't seem to me to be the way to build a reliable system. Sony could close the deal with a firmware update that includes lossless compression and focus stacking/shifting.
Glenn
-
I agree with Bernard about the viewfinders. Having used both the Z7 and the AR7IV, the Nikon viewfinder is still the most comfortable and natural. Between that and the ergonomics, the Nikon wins my heart. The Sony, particularly with the Voigtländer and Loxia lenses still wins my head. Third party adapters that have to reverse engineer the Z mount connections don't seem to me to be the way to build a reliable system. Sony could close the deal with a firmware update that includes lossless compression and focus stacking/shifting.
Glenn
Focus stacking for Sony. Yes please.
I think Nikons problems relate more to a lack of market analysis than anything else. They make the best of stuff that people don’t seem to want or need and then forget to make the things people really do want. Marketing isn’t selling stuff you make to people. It’s making things that people want to buy. Nikon often seem totally blank on this one.
Nikon make great equipment and seem to forget to listen to their clients. Sony really seem to be able to react to clients in all sorts of little ways. So come on Sony. Focus stacking.
-
Third party adapters that have to reverse engineer the Z mount connections don't seem to me to be the way to build a reliable system. Sony could close the deal with a firmware update that includes lossless compression and focus stacking/shifting.
That's true. If you need reliable/fast AF, this isn't a credible at this stage.
However if fast AF isn't needed, I find the Techart to be suitable to adapt E lenses on the Nikon Z.
This is really great because I can invest in Sony lenses and will still be able to use them on the Nikon the day they catch up in terms of eye AF, at least for slow moving models.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's true. If you need reliable/fast AF, this isn't a credible at this stage.
However if fast AF isn't needed, I find the Techart to be suitable to adapt E lenses on the Nikon Z.
This is really great because I can invest in Sony lenses and will still be able to use them on the Nikon the day they catch up in terms of eye AF, at least for slow moving models.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's not only slow AF with adapters...but they typically are limited to the centre part of the image for AF...which really limits their usefulness. Back to the focus and recompose days of 10 years ago.
-
It's not only slow AF with adapters...but they typically are limited to the centre part of the image for AF...which really limits their usefulness. Back to the focus and recompose days of 10 years ago.
Speaking specifically of the Techart adapter enabling to mount Sony E mount lenses on the Nikon Z, the corner AF points work fine, at least in AF-S/AF-C mode on static subjects, and the result is tack sharp even in pretty dark environments. It's also pretty fast.
The only problem really is moving subjects, but even that is not always the case.
And I am trying with a Sigma 35mm f1.2 that is slow to focus on the Sony a7rIV also. I have not tried yet with the Sony 135mm f1.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think it's just Nikon that's in trouble. Indeed, the smartphone has become the Brownie of the 21st century. I use mine for snapshots and even thumbnails and b-roll video. I have an Pine XS and, going on what I've seen, the 11 is quite amazing.
But I'm not about to give up my "real" cameras ... though I am leaning towards liquidating my DSLRs and moving fully to mirrorless. Three years ago, I invested in Fuji mirrorless. This spring, I bought the Nikon Z-6 and I'm impressed. The Fuji will be sold soon (never did fully embrace) so I can add to my z-mount lenses.
So Nikon still have me as a customer, after more than 4 decades, for what that's worth. But it will be interesting to see how all this shakes down. I suspect there will be blood.
-
All the camera companies are facing major declines in volume. The market is declining by 18-20% annually. There is no compelling reason to buy a new camera today as there was 15 years ago. The cameras of today are excellent - but so are the 5 year old models they are replacing.
The low end of the market is infrequent consumer buyers. They get a lot better results with phone cameras than a full size camera, they don't post process or edit images, and most of the images have a final output on social media rather than a print. Prints are infrequent. That market includes the segment that will move up to enthusiast in the future, but it's mainly people who will put a camera in a closet and use their phone more and more. Nikon is decreasing emphasis on this market - and Canon has a similar strategy.
Nikon's mirrorless segment is actually growing - it's just falling short of overly aggressive projections. The cameras are good and the lenses are terrific. There are some niches where a DSLR is better - such as fast action - but for most use the mirrorless is better than their latest DSLR.
Nikon is facing writeoffs and restructuring as they shrink the business to match future volumes. You don't go from 20% declines to growth in a year or two. They are facing a 40-50% decline from today's volume before things stabilize. They are making a transition from DSLR to ML, but that's not going to be a big growth segment compared to the decline in DSLR sales. Why would a DSLR user continue to invest in lenses?
Canon faces almost exactly the same issues. They had a 17% decline in revenue, increasing inventories, and they lack any cameras compatible with CFExpress cards. They are fighting that with price by discounting older products. They have a growing mirrorless segment, but don't yet have the camera bodies to go with the pro lenses. Their strategy - like Nikon - is to target the enthusiast and professional markets. But they have reduced their sales and pro support staff, they provide less support to the Canon Explorers program, and they are struggling to maintain profitability. Canon indicated the transition will take at least two more years.
Sony has stopped breaking out all the detail for their imaging division - it's combined into a broader segment. They did a good job of moving to mirrorless - when their DSLR business was dying. They are well positioned but still are not seeing sales growth. When there is growth, it comes from discounting older models - which might be a good strategy. They do face issues with having a smaller mount, so the Canon and Nikon lenses will have a performance edge, and Sony will be in a position where many of their lenses are not as good as Canon and Nikon alternatives. Right now they have a good lineup - and performance is good compared to DSLR lenses - but Sony users will need to see an upgrade cycle to compete with the newer Canon and Nikon lenses (which benefit form the larger mount).
Nikon is in reasonable shape for now. You can go a long time making small profits - it's operating losses that kill you. Smaller competitors will exit first. Olympus is losing 30% of every sales dollar right now and has no real opportunity to increase sales. Fuji has a small niche market that is in decline. Panasonic is doing well, but it's in the small camera market and they face market declines. I'm not sure any camera company is "safe". Big companies that have money losing camera divisions are even more likely to bite the bullet and close money losing businesses.
Perhaps one of the most telling things about the camera market was the exit of Lexar from the market. The new Micron CEO - which owned Lexar - came from Sandisk. They looked at their businesses which were all growing rapidly, and decided the memory card business was better off discontinued since it was never going to grow or be worth investment of management time and capital. Micron could sell memory to others and not fool with the small Lexar product line - even with the number two market position.
-
Sony has stopped breaking out all the detail for their imaging division - it's combined into a broader segment. They did a good job of moving to mirrorless - when their DSLR business was dying. They are well positioned but still are not seeing sales growth. When there is growth, it comes from discounting older models - which might be a good strategy. They do face issues with having a smaller mount, so the Canon and Nikon lenses will have a performance edge, and Sony will be in a position where many of their lenses are not as good as Canon and Nikon alternatives. Right now they have a good lineup - and performance is good compared to DSLR lenses - but Sony users will need to see an upgrade cycle to compete with the newer Canon and Nikon lenses (which benefit form the larger mount).
I highly doubt that Sony will be brought down by the size of their lens mount. There is no question that if, starting from scratch, a larger mount gives optical designers more flexibility... but that's theory. Evidence is that Zeiss created the Otus lenses with the constraint of the Nikon F mount, Voigtlander has created spectacular APO lenses for the Sony E mount, the Sony G Master lenses are first rate (albeit with some QC issues), and the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is at least as good as the Nikon S 35mm f/1.8. Perhaps Nikon and Canon will produce a few better f/1.2 - f/0.95 lenses, but the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 for Sony E mount is apparently class-leading (again, with some QC variability that seems to be industry wide). The only clear advantage I see for a larger lens mount is a bit more room for IBIS to operate.
-
I highly doubt that Sony will be brought down by the size of their lens mount. There is no question that if, starting from scratch, a larger mount gives optical designers more flexibility... but that's theory. Evidence is that Zeiss created the Otus lenses with the constraint of the Nikon F mount, Voigtlander has created spectacular APO lenses for the Sony E mount, the Sony G Master lenses are first rate (albeit with some QC issues), and the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is at least as good as the Nikon S 35mm f/1.8. Perhaps Nikon and Canon will produce a few better f/1.2 - f/0.95 lenses, but the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 for Sony E mount is apparently class-leading (again, with some QC variability that seems to be industry wide). The only clear advantage I see for a larger lens mount is a bit more room for IBIS to operate.
The benefits of a larger mount are referenced by both Canon and Nikon. It shows up in better sharpness toward the edges and corners, and improved CA. Those advantages are noteworthy in all of the Nikon S lenses to date.
-
Eric, I like your overview, with just a few quibbles where I am a bit more optimistic for the lower levels of ILC usage:
The low end of the market is infrequent consumer buyers. They get a lot better results with phone cameras than a full size camera, ... and most of the images have a final output on social media rather than a print. Prints are infrequent.
There is at least one place where even a basic ILC kit with a zoom lens has a fairly visible IQ advantage: at the long end of that zoom range, where the phone camera is cropping massively from a lens with a far wider angular FOV (even the new "telephoto" lenses on phones have the angular FOV of about a 50mm "normal" lens in 35mm format). And this is dramatically more so for those who go for a two zoom lens kit or a "super-zoom" (like the 28-200 that was the standard lens for much of my casual SLR photography days.)
Relatedly, you overlook one common and more demanding way that casual photographers share photos these days: on their big-screen TVs, and for many younger people, on their computer screens ("kids these days" do still often have at least a laptop as well as a phone!) This is for example how my relatives share their photos when I visit, and TVs often have wireless photo-sharing with phones as a built-in feature.
With 4K TVs and computer screens becoming common, quality that can keep up with that is likely still a selling point, and massive "digital telephoto" crops to well below 4K resolution will not hold up well.
There is also the easy temptation of zooming on a photo, to look at a friend's expression or whatever, so image files with true resolution well beyond what is seen on the phone's screen can be desirable.
-
Eric, I like your overview, with just a few quibbles where I am a bit more optimistic for the lower levels of ILC usage:
There is at least one place where even a basic ILC kit with a zoom lens has a fairly visible IQ advantage: at the long end of that zoom range, where the phone camera is cropping massively from a lens with a far wider angular FOV (even the new "telephoto" lenses on phones have the angular FOV of about a 50mm "normal" lens in 35mm format). And this is dramatically more so for those who go for a two zoom lens kit or a "super-zoom" (like the 28-200 that was the standard lens for much of my casual SLR photography days.)
Relatedly, you overlook one common and more demanding way that casual photographers share photos these days: on their big-screen TVs, and for many younger people, on their computer screens ("kids these days" do still often have at least a laptop as well as a phone!) This is for example how my relatives share their photos when I visit, and TVs often have wireless photo-sharing with phones as a built-in feature.
With 4K TVs and computer screens becoming common, quality that can keep up with that is likely still a selling point, and massive "digital telephoto" crops to well below 4K resolution will not hold up well.
There is also the easy temptation of zooming on a photo, to look at a friend's expression or whatever, so image files with true resolution well beyond what is seen on the phone's screen can be desirable.
The huge majority of images being viewed these days are on phones with things like iPads being 2nd. I have 3 children in their 30's and none use a computer these days, nor do their network of friends. The current phones exceed the quality this generation requires.
-
The huge majority of images being viewed these days are on phones with things like iPads being 2nd. I have 3 children in their 30's and none use a computer these days, nor do their network of friends. The current phones exceed the quality this generation requires.
That might be true for some significant cohort; my comments and experience is with adults who have big screen TV’s—and who in my experience, like to use them to look at photos. But neither my tiny data set nor yours is a good way to decide this question! A hint for me is that both Apple and Samsung ( the world’s two leading camera makers) put efforts into apps and other software support (like Apple’s AirPlay) for beaming photos from phones to TVs and computers. They would not be doing that if “everyone just views phone photos on phones”, so I think a real trend in viewing habits is being exaggerated into an oversimplification.
Note that if just a few percent of phone-camera users want the extra abilities I talk of, it creates a very healthy market for stepping up to a basic ILC kit; thus observations that “most people do not do it can be true and yet overlook a substantial market sector.
-
That might be true for some significant cohort; my comments and experience is with adults who have big screen TV’s—and who in my experience, like to use them to look at photos. But neither my tiny data set nor yours is a good way to decide this question! A hint for me is that both Apple and Samsung ( the world’s two leading camera makers) put efforts into apps and other software support (like Apple’s AirPlay) for beaming photos from phones to TVs and computers. They would not be doing that if “everyone just views phone photos on phones”, so I think a real trend in viewing habits is being exaggerated into an oversimplification.
Note that if just a few percent of phone-camera users want the extra abilities I talk of, it creates a very healthy market for stepping up to a basic ILC kit; thus observations that “most people do not do it can be true and yet overlook a substantial market sector.
Well so far data shows the opposite, people are dropping the low end camera and using phones in droves.
-
I am in a situation that may have some bearing. I shall be photographing a family christening, and will use my mirrorless. I will process the images in LR and then use Wetransfer to send them to the baby's mother some days later. She would like to see and share some images quickly. I can transfer images to my phone via an app, but it has to be done in a precise way starting by getting the camera and phone to talk to each other wirelessly. Once on my phone she can have them quickly via airdrop. That is the reality of what many want these days, to share images quickly and easily.
What I do not understand is with only really 2 systems, Apple and Android, both of which can enable sharing, why can't camera manufacturers make sharing easier? It is no wonder camera manufacturers are having a hard time competing with smartphones. They are not responding to the uses people want.
There may be something I am missing. How do sports photographers transmit their images quickly to a remote media organisation?
-
Chez, what you say about most people dropping dedicated for phones is true, but does contradict what I am suggesting, which is that things like the desire for more telephoto reach and still having images that look good on a big screen TV can lead a few percent of “casual photographers” to get an ILC kit, and a few percent of about a billion smart phones per year is still a viable market.
Even with the dropping sales, ILC sales and revenues are still above what film SLR sales ever were; the bigger potential market and shorter lifetime of electronic devices has a good chance of offsetting the smaller fraction of people who want an ILC.
-
There may be something I am missing. How do sports photographers transmit their images quickly to a remote media organisation?
There's a difference between "extremely" fast and "instant." Take a snapshot in Seattle with your iPhone and your friend in New York can be looking at it five seconds later. Take a high-res telephoto image at a football game in Seattle, pop the card, import it to your telephone-enabled iPad (or use wifi where available) and send it to your friend in New York, and he's looking at it almost 25 seconds later than he would be if it were an iPhone shot.
If you have two or three cards, and learn how to use them and import them to a laptop or iPad, you can actually have hi-res telephoto shots processed through (simple) enhancements in Lightroom and sent on their way in a minute or two each. If the difference between, say, five seconds and one minute is critical, best to stay with an iPhone. 8-)
It sorta depends on whether you're a photographer or a snapshotter.
This whole thing about Nikon or Canon or whatever being in trouble, is like Leica has been in trouble, etc. They're only in trouble if they try to staff and research like they did in the glory years of the transition between film and digital. In my opinion, it's probable that Nikon will survive, as will Canon, but they will have to reduce their staffing, reduce the number of new (and often pointless) releases, going back to what they were in the '80s, when they were smaller but still quite profitable.
-
Chez, what you say about most people dropping dedicated for phones is true, but does contradict what I am suggesting, which is that things like the desire for more telephoto reach and still having images that look good on a big screen TV can lead a few percent of “casual photographers” to get an ILC kit, and a few percent of about a billion smart phones per year is still a viable market.
Even with the dropping sales, ILC sales and revenues are still above what film SLR sales ever were; the bigger potential market and shorter lifetime of electronic devices has a good chance of offsetting the smaller fraction of people who want an ILC.
Tell this to the CEO's of both Nikon and Canon which are saying their industry is changing with revenues of cameras dropping every year...and for the foreseeable future. Your numbers look somewhat compelling, but they are not playing out in reality.
-
There's a difference between "extremely" fast and "instant." Take a snapshot in Seattle with your iPhone and your friend in New York can be looking at it five seconds later. Take a high-res telephoto image at a football game in Seattle, pop the card, import it to your telephone-enabled iPad (or use wifi where available) and send it to your friend in New York, and he's looking at it almost 25 seconds later than he would be if it were an iPhone shot.
If you have two or three cards, and learn how to use them and import them to a laptop or iPad, you can actually have hi-res telephoto shots processed through (simple) enhancements in Lightroom and sent on their way in a minute or two each. If the difference between, say, five seconds and one minute is critical, best to stay with an iPhone. 8-)
It sorta depends on whether you're a photographer or a snapshotter.
This whole thing about Nikon or Canon or whatever being in trouble, is like Leica has been in trouble, etc. They're only in trouble if they try to staff and research like they did in the glory years of the transition between film and digital. In my opinion, it's probable that Nikon will survive, as will Canon, but they will have to reduce their staffing, reduce the number of new (and often pointless) releases, going back to what they were in the '80s, when they were smaller but still quite profitable.
This will all depend on what the shareholders want. Personally I'd find it hard to invest into a technology company that has revenue dropping through the roof...and adjusting to a company maybe 1/4 the size it was in its heyday. Ask the shareholders of blackberry how they felt when the company went through its restructure to a small more focussed company.
-
This will all depend on what the shareholders want. Personally I'd find it hard to invest into a technology company that has revenue dropping through the roof...and adjusting to a company maybe 1/4 the size it was in its heyday. Ask the shareholders of blackberry how they felt when the company went through its restructure to a small more focussed company.
Over the last 20 years I've invested in Hasselblad, Leica and now Nikon. Despite the constant whining of armchair CEOs and naysayers the manufacturers have survived and the cameras have served me well. Long may it continue.
Back to making images...
-
As in nature in order to survive you’ll need be adaptive to change. This is what Nikon is going through. Revenue dropping through the roof is one of the side effects to achieve this.
Personally I don’t give a bleep what size the company will be next couple of years compared to its heydays, as long as the new company structure will be financially ‘in balance’. I have no doubts Nikon is going to realize this, not in the last place because Nikon is active in other business segments as well.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
As in nature in order to survive you’ll need be adaptive to change. This is what Nikon is going through. Revenue dropping through the roof is one of the side effects to achieve this.
Personally I don’t give a bleep what size the company will be next couple of years compared to its heydays, as long as the new company structure will be financially ‘in balance’. I have no doubts Nikon is going to realize this, not in the last place because Nikon is active in other business segments as well.
Regards,
Jaap.
That's all and good but if Nikon tends toward a niche market...expect Leica prices in order to survive. Those prices might be fine with you...but I'd venture it will be a problem with many others.
-
That's all and good but if Nikon tends toward a niche market...expect Leica prices in order to survive. Those prices might be fine with you...but I'd venture it will be a problem with many others.
There is a whole spectrum of options between their current condition, becoming a new Leica and going bankrupt.
Being a Nikon hater you like to focus on those options that paint the future Nikon in a bad light.
What’s in it besides a waste of time?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is a whole spectrum of options between their current condition, becoming a new Leica and going bankrupt.
Being a Nikon hater you like to focus on those options that paint the future Nikon in a bad light.
What’s in it besides a waste of time?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I'm not a Nikn hater...just a realist that removes my rose coloured glasses when viewing things. You on the other hand is a Nikon fanboi which I guess get your kicks out of cheerleading.
I provide an alternate view to your "everything Nikon touches is golden"...best in class. Otherwise we can just all get in a circle and hold hands singing kumbaya when Nikon is discussed.
-
It's not only slow AF with adapters...but they typically are limited to the centre part of the image for AF...which really limits their usefulness. Back to the focus and recompose days of 10 years ago.
And the minute you recompose you have lost yourself that great original focus, because the lens tries to retain a flat field, and when you put the focussed point somewhere else in the viewfinder by swinging the camera around its vertical axis to point somewhere else, you have changed the plane on which focus was originally made. Your original point of focus will always be nearer, i.e. on a closer flat plane now at an angle to the original plane.
You can only keep roughly the same focus plane (that still includes your original subject), if you shift the lens sideways on a stationary camera to put the subject into its new position, because once the camera itself is swung fom a central point to a different angle, you have changed the planes upon which the lens has been focussed, rendering all those wonderful focussing aids irrelevant.
You need a front with movements in order to retain the same plane of focus if you twist the camera from is original position. Real life sometimes sucks.
;-)
Rob
-
I can see that iPhones will become the generally accepted face of photography.
Back in the 50s when I was starting to burn up with photo lust, the way to learn, if you didn't have a rich friend with a darkroom, was via the magazines that ran series of how-to articles; that kept them selling and you learning. The same publications ran camera and lens reviews, and so you were exposed to both sides of the game in a single publication, and the camera ads were all there in great numbers.
As the mags died, and I suppose they died because the readers drifted away into other things, or had reached the top level of what the mags could teach via reading, camera and lens manufacturers became less willing to buy advertising space at the very same time as other forms of amusement came along, the net interest in photography falling to a level that could not sustain the camera people as before. New blood is essential for sustaining readership or camera sales, and as competition increases for available time and people, numbers fall and critical mass with them. Digital did throw in a golden period of growth, but it is now facing the same problems as film: interest is shifting elsewhere: to cellphones with lenses.
When you realise that that's where many people's image aspirations rest, it's not surprising traditional camera styles are in decline. A part of the problem is that the places where people want to view their snaps have changed, too, and an iPad is a great way of looking at them. Advertising seems to agree with that too, and print may end up as a rarity, which if that comes to pass, will reduce the quality that cameras need to provide. I have abandoned printing completely simply because it costs more than it's worth to me. Is that position so rare? I don't think so. Once you have a few boxes of wonderful prints, why will you keep building up more to no clear purpose? When you know you can do it, there seems little point in proving that to yourself all the time.
Do younger folks really want to look at their pix on tv sets? Do they look at a tv in the first place?
Long ago, I metioned here on LuLa that had I been born into the digital age, I might never have become a photographer at all. The visceral kick of making one's first wet print is not matched in digital printing, partly, at least, because that damned image is already seen, and looking better on the monitor, than when it churns out of a machine. It is a cold process with little heart. Where its hook?
I suspect we will end up with Leica doing rangefinders, and Nikon with reflex or mirrorless cameras, both brands at the highest level for a tiny, rich market. Just like watches, then. The top brands survive very well, thank you, selling at a helluva lot more money than most top cameras dream of touching. Think about that.
;-)
Rob
-
This reminds me of the transition from analogue to digital audio. When CDs arrived, they were derided because of the digital sampling. I put on a cd unbeknown to a friend who was staying. He is a good musician and has an excellent ear. He immediately said it was a cd because there was no variation in the spin speed. Issues over audio quality have all but gone, and analogue recorded music is a small market sector. Now CDs are disappearing as streamed audio on to phones takes over.
The same may be happening to recorded images. For many who take images, ease of sharing is important, and the fact that a phone is involved means it is usually on people so they can receive and look. And let's face it, viewing on most electronic devices do not need loads of megapixels, even at 4K, so 12Mp phones are sufficient.
Rightly or wrongly IMHO I do not think most of the members of this forum are part of the 'mass market'. We just have to hope that manufacturers will be able to continue to produce the sort of kit we and the professional market use.
Let's embrace smartphones and see if they stimulate our creativity, and not condemn them because they do not produce pin sharpness at 24"x16"!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I'm a photography enthusiast who has occasionally done professional-like work (shooting for news and for niche magazines, etc.) and I think there will always be an interested group of photographers like me, or pure professionals, doing high-quality work, however it is displayed. Eventually, I think, many photos will be viewed on dedicated flat-panel machines that will be like 8K TVs without all the TV guts -- you'll pop in a memory card, or access a wi-fi file, and the photo will be displayed -- or maybe a group of photos, or videos. They may very well be displayed like paintings, on living room walls. Right now, hi res professional cameras are needed for things like the model photos at Victoria's Secret, where the client wants both very smooth skin tones but also fourteen-foot-high prints. Those may eventually be replaced by very large screens, when screen prices fall enough (which they will.) For those screens, 12mp cameras won't be enough. Maybe iPhones will go to 48mp eventually, and they will be enough for very large hi-res, very croppable photos, but I think that's unlikely, because of all the factors that everybody knows about.
-
I'm a photography enthusiast who has occasionally done professional-like work (shooting for news and for niche magazines, etc.) and I think there will always be an interested group of photographers like me, or pure professionals, doing high-quality work, however it is displayed. Eventually, I think, many photos will be viewed on dedicated flat-panel machines that will be like 8K TVs without all the TV guts -- you'll pop in a memory card, or access a wi-fi file, and the photo will be displayed -- or maybe a group of photos, or videos. They may very well be displayed like paintings, on living room walls. Right now, hi res professional cameras are needed for things like the model photos at Victoria's Secret, where the client wants both very smooth skin tones but also fourteen-foot-high prints. Those may eventually be replaced by very large screens, when screen prices fall enough (which they will.) For those screens, 12mp cameras won't be enough. Maybe iPhones will go to 48mp eventually, and they will be enough for very large hi-res, very croppable photos, but I think that's unlikely, because of all the factors that everybody knows about.
I wouldn't count phone cameras out so soon. The amount of R&D going into those phone cameras these days is staggering compared to the pitence camera manufactures are spending on R&D. If the move to viewing images is on large 8k devices...the phones will be driving it...not the traditional cameras that are still deciding where to put buttons on the camera.
-
Tell this to the CEO's of both Nikon and Canon which are saying their industry is changing with revenues of cameras dropping every year...and for the foreseeable future. Your numbers look somewhat compelling, but they are not playing out in reality.
Perhaps i have given a misleading impression of what I expect, because I have been reacting to over-pessimistic views and so emphasizing the other, more optimistic side of the evidence.
I agree with what Canon and Nikon are indicating about the shrinkage that the ILC (DSLR + MILC) market is facing, but that leaves room more a more nuanced vision than that of "All except us few, proud, dedicated photographers will make do with a phone-camera for both taking and viewing photographs". There is a big gap between "most" and "all" in a market as big as photography.
On one hand, Canon has [IIRC] predicted ILC unit sales getting down to about 5 million per year with a few years, which would be less than half the number at "peak DLSR", and it seems that Nikon is heading for having to write off surplus production capacity (and probably not alone).
On the other hand, Canon and Nikon have between them introduced eight or nine "consumer level", APS-C format ILCs this year and last, and industry-wide the total for "consumer" ILCs is about 19 to 22, roughly matching the total of higher-end models released, by which I mean all in the larger formats (35mm format and up) plus high-end models in the smaller formats (4/3" and APS-C). And that predicted 5 million/year is in line with the best that film SLRs ever achieved, back in an era that supported about four mainstream brands (Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax) along with a few fringe players (Olympus, Konica, ...)
So, industry words and actions point to a substantial shrinkage of "casual/amateur" usage of ILCs, not its disappearance.
-
Perhaps i have given a misleading impression of what I expect, because I have been reacting to over-pessimistic views and so emphasizing the other, more optimistic side of the evidence.
I agree with what Canon and Nikon are indicating about the shrinkage that the ILC (DSLR + MILC) market is facing, but that leaves room more a more nuanced vision than that of "All except us few, proud, dedicated photographers will make do with a phone-camera for both taking and viewing photographs". There is a big gap between "most" and "all" in a market as big as photography.
On one hand, Canon has [IIRC] predicted ILC unit sales getting down to about 5 million per year with a few years, which would be less than half the number at "peak DLSR", and it seems that Nikon is heading for having to write off surplus production capacity (and probably not alone).
On the other hand, Canon and Nikon have between them introduced eight or nine "consumer level", APS-C format ILCs this year and last, and industry-wide the total for "consumer" ILCs is about 19 to 22, roughly matching the total of higher-end models released, by which I mean all in the larger formats (35mm format and up) plus high-end models in the smaller formats (4/3" and APS-C). And that predicted 5 million/year is in line with the best that film SLRs ever achieved, back in an era that supported about four mainstream brands (Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax) along with a few fringe players (Olympus, Konica, ...)
So, industry words and actions point to a substantial shrinkage of "casual/amateur" usage of ILCs, not its disappearance.
The professional photographer's market has also tanked big time...so both the top end and bottom has dropped. Let's also not forget that with the emergence of disposable income coming to Asia and China...achieving the same levels of sales as the 90's is really nothing to squawk about...it is in fact heading backwards...especially for a product that is basically an electronic device now.
-
Let's also not forget that with the emergence of disposable income coming to Asia and China...achieving the same levels of sales as the 90's is really nothing to squawk about...it is in fact heading backwards...especially for a product that is basically an electronic device now.
Absolutely! The big growth in number of people who can afford an interchangeable lens camera (or a gold iPhone) is saving camera makers from a far worse fate, because it is clear that, of those who _could_ afford an ILC, a far smaller fraction actually buy them.
-
If anyone is in doubt about the iPhone taking over lots of pro work, look no further than Nick Knight, who now uses it almost exclusively.
He runs Showstudio.com, which you can view on youtube. If it works for him at his level of success, which is stellar, why not for the rest of us people? I have been going through a lot of his videos of late, and his enthusiasm and logic about using the cellphone for his main photography and filming is compelling. In one, he mentions an app that he uses for making huge enlargements from the iPhone.
Rob
-
... his enthusiasm and logic about using the cellphone for his main photography and filming is compelling. In one, he mentions an app that he uses for making huge enlargements from the iPhone.
Do you have a link to that video ( and the name of the app ?)
He's uploaded almost 400 videos in the past year alone, so a specific link to that video would be helpful.
-
*/ off topic
Richard Prince ran a series of 60" prints he 'nicked' off Instagram and then sold for $90,000 a print, but guessing that he projected the image and (re)photographed the projected image on a hi-res MF ...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/18/instagram-artist-richard-prince-selfies
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/arts/design/richard-prince-instagram-copyright-lawsuit.html
https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use
-
Do you have a link to that video ( and the name of the app ?)
He's uploaded almost 400 videos in the past year alone, so a specific link to that video would be helpful.
That's my problem too: can't remember which particular video it was on. I have been looking mainly at the model interviews, but now that I remember, he also pushed the iPhone on one of those interviews he's done before live audiences - which could be anywhere.
Wish I'd made a note, if only for the future when I might get a new cellphone as my current one no longer makes pix that used to be so useful for when shopping, one pic always better than words in a hardware store!
Rob
-
Over the last 20 years I've invested in Hasselblad, Leica and now Nikon. Despite the constant whining of armchair CEOs and naysayers the manufacturers have survived and the cameras have served me well. Long may it continue.
Back to making images...
Over the past 40 years I've invested in Hasselblad, Nikon and LF lenses. Of course they haven't appreciated in value, and most are now gone. I do worry a bit more about investing in the newest AF lenses. Something like a Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 has two motors and lots of electronics that need to work just to focus. I am still drawn to more mechanical lenses like the Voigtlanders. At least if their electronics fail I can still get an image. That said, they are not investments, but tools for use and the optical quality of many of the recent crop is amazing.
As for Nikon, they need to focus on products that have decent profit margins. Why they continue to work on compact point-n-shoots is beyond me. Filling out the Z lens roadmap as rapidly as possible seems absolutely key to their success, and sometime in the next year to 18 months, they need to demonstrate the ability to iterate or extend the FX Z line of bodies.
-
That's my problem too: can't remember which particular video it was on...
Thank you, Rob.
Had to ask, just in case ... :)
M
-
Over the past 40 years I've invested in Hasselblad, Nikon and LF lenses. Of course they haven't appreciated in value, and most are now gone. I do worry a bit more about investing in the newest AF lenses. Something like a Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 has two motors and lots of electronics that need to work just to focus. I am still drawn to more mechanical lenses like the Voigtlanders. At least if their electronics fail I can still get an image. That said, they are not investments, but tools for use and the optical quality of many of the recent crop is amazing.
As for Nikon, they need to focus on products that have decent profit margins. Why they continue to work on compact point-n-shoots is beyond me. Filling out the Z lens roadmap as rapidly as possible seems absolutely key to their success, and sometime in the next year to 18 months, they need to demonstrate the ability to iterate or extend the FX Z line of bodies.
Just to be clear, I'm no longer invested in Hasselblad or Leica.
-
I used to feel that I had holdings in Nikon, Hasselblad 500 series and Rolex.
And I chose my words above carefully, too. Those three items are/were far more than just stuff you use to make snaps and tell the time. When you were at a particular level in your career - or at least en route to getting to where you felt your personal glass ceiling might hang suspended, those items became visible signifiers to clients that you took the job seriously, had achieved a certain level of success, and that they could feel relatively comfortable spending a few score grand with you. Worked for me. The thing about it is this: nobody asks you about your watch, but they notice, especially if they, too, are wearing one. It's perhaps akin to being blonde and having a beautiful face and a great figure, if you see what I mean. It just is.
Today, the 'blads are no more and the Nikons sit pretty much neglected, and the Rolex was stolen in October.
Quite apart from the fact that I am now retired, the watch will never be replaced by another of equal status if only because I find that kind of money too much for me to spend - no longer an investment at this time of life. It has lost its third-party significance now, because after losing my wife I retreated into a fairly solitary world of photography and music appreciation. For me, the Jones no longer exist.
You might be forgiven for believing that going way, way downmarket in the watch replacement saga might prove a simplification of life. Far from it. The new one arrived yesterday by scooter and cellphone call, and I must say, it's a handsome beast, but unfortunately, it arrived with a tease: the steel band (wrist) is huge! I have made an appointment with a friendly old jeweller that I have known for decades - an Italian, which gets my vote - and tomorrow, short of further glitches, links will be removed and I will be able to wear the thing. He suggested I wear longer sleeves this time.
;-(
-
I used to feel that I had holdings in Nikon, Hasselblad 500 series and Rolex.
And I chose my words above carefully, too. Those three items are/were far more than just stuff you use to make snaps and tell the time. When you were at a particular level in your career - or at least en route to getting to where you felt your personal glass ceiling might hang suspended, those items became visible signifiers to clients that you took the job seriously, had achieved a certain level of success, and that they could feel relatively comfortable spending a few score grand with you. Worked for me. The thing about it is this: nobody asks you about your watch, but they notice, especially if they, too, are wearing one. It's perhaps akin to being blonde and having a beautiful face and a great figure, if you see what I mean. It just is.
Today, the 'blads are no more and the Nikons sit pretty much neglected, and the Rolex was stolen in October.
Quite apart from the fact that I am now retired, the watch will never be replaced by another of equal status if only because I find that kind of money too much for me to spend - no longer an investment at this time of life. It has lost its third-party significance now, because after losing my wife I retreated into a fairly solitary world of photography and music appreciation. For me, the Jones no longer exist.
You might be forgiven for believing that going way, way downmarket in the watch replacement saga might prove a simplification of life. Far from it. The new one arrived yesterday by scooter and cellphone call, and I must say, it's a handsome beast, but unfortunately, it arrived with a tease: the steel band (wrist) is huge! I have made an appointment with a friendly old jeweller that I have known for decades - an Italian, which gets my vote - and tomorrow, short of further glitches, links will be removed and I will be able to wear the thing. He suggested I wear longer sleeves this time.
;-(
These days I want to be as anonymous as possible. Rather ironically, easily done with a Leica M in hand. Thankfully no one knew what they were, commented on them or took them at all seriously. Just old fashioned, little, amateur cameras: bliss.
It remains to be seen what the reactions to the Nikon Zs are - everyone knows about Nikon - with similar size bodies to the Leicas but more in-your-face lenses. Are they going to scare the natives? Are they going to attract unwanted attention? Time will tell.
Watches, the only time I wear one is when flying, it cost virtually nothing and was the least bling watch I could find.
-
These days I want to be as anonymous as possible. Rather ironically, easily done with a Leica M in hand. Thankfully no one knew what they were, commented on them or took them at all seriously. Just old fashioned, little, amateur cameras: bliss.
It remains to be seen what the reactions to the Nikon Zs are - everyone knows about Nikon - with similar size bodies to the Leicas but more in-your-face lenses. Are they going to scare the natives? Are they going to attract unwanted attention? Time will tell.
Watches, the only time I wear one is when flying, it cost virtually nothing and was the least bling watch I could find.
Leicas were the first real cameras that I became aware of as a kid. Thanks to the pages of various US magazines that eventually appeared in India, I saw their, and also Nikon and Canon ads, at a time when I was still wondering what f meant in front of a lens. I think that Leica must have struck me as being beautiful - as it was the early 50s, I guess I may have been seduced by 111F or 111G machines? It was exactly the same with the Rolex: I fell into instant love with the first Sub that I ever saw; it was on the wrist of a photographer who turned up to work one morning at the industrial unit where I was spending my formative years in our art. (He had lived in Switzerland for a while and I was never sure what had brought him down to common or garden employment, and of course, I was never going to ask.) That first impression was to remain with me for the rest of my days: as with the rangefinders, the best, most beautiful bits of industrial design on my planet. I honestly can't share your opinion on either object as being bling. I can share that view regarding the replacement, the Invicta, for I'm sure its sole raison d'être is to be a fake Sub. I feel I have a right to exclude myself from membership of the fakers club. I just like the design concept so much I'm unwilling to let go. ;-)
The few weeks without a watch have left me feeling naked. It is an essential companion. Even with nothing to do and no particular place to go, it is imperative that one remain informed of where the day is going. And when the next pills are due.
When I was an unwilling scout, there was a story going the rounds that a watch could serve as a compass. I never quite figured out how that worked; anybody else heard that story and know the answer as to how - or if - it works?
Rob
-
Leicas were the first real cameras that I became aware of as a kid. Thanks to the pages of various US magazines that eventually appeared in India, I saw their, and also Nikon and Canon ads, at a time when I was still wondering what f meant in front of a lens. I think that Leica must have struck me as being beautiful - as it was the early 50s, I guess I may have been seduced by 111F or 111G machines? It was exactly the same with the Rolex: I fell into instant love with the first Sub that I ever saw; it was on the wrist of a photographer who turned up to work one morning at the industrial unit where I was spending my formative years in our art. (He had lived in Switzerland for a while and I was never sure what had brought him down to common or garden employment, and of course, I was never going to ask.) That first impression was to remain with me for the rest of my days: as with the rangefinders, the best, most beautiful bits of industrial design on my planet. I honestly can't share your opinion on either object as being bling. I can share that view regarding the replacement, the Invicta, for I'm sure its sole raison d'être is to be a fake Sub. I feel I have a right to exclude myself from membership of the fakers club. I just like the design concept so much I'm unwilling to let go. ;-)
The few weeks without a watch have left me feeling naked. It is an essential companion. Even with nothing to do and no particular place to go, it is imperative that one remain informed of where the day is going. And when the next pills are due.
When I was an unwilling scout, there was a story going the rounds that a watch could serve as a compass. I never quite figured out how that worked; anybody else heard that story and know the answer as to how - or if - it works?
Rob
I never thought of either Hasselblad or Leica as being bling, merely tools.
-
ask.)
When I was an unwilling scout, there was a story going the rounds that a watch could serve as a compass. I never quite figured out how that worked; anybody else heard that story and know the answer as to how - or if - it works?
Rob
It works — within a reasonable margin of error. Hold the watch horizontal and point the hour hand at the sun. Half way between the hour hand and the twelve o'clock mark on your watch points to the south (in the northern hemisphere). It’s not perfect, because there’s some variation depending on where in the time zone you are, but it’s accurate enough to get you out of trouble.
Oh, and you have to use standard tome, not daylight savings.
-
If you are in the UK and want to know what time it is in India then simply hold your watch upside down.
-
It works — within a reasonable margin of error. Hold the watch horizontal and point the hour hand at the sun. Half way between the hour hand and the twelve o'clock mark on your watch points to the south (in the northern hemisphere). It’s not perfect, because there’s some variation depending on where in the time zone you are, but it’s accurate enough to get you out of trouble.
Oh, and you have to use standard tome, not daylight savings.
Just tried that, and it actually does work very well!
I know where north lies, from my terrace, because it fits a tight angle between two buildings and where I must stand. South, according to the watch, is just where it should be. This was done a few moments ago, at about 11:50 local time, so the Sun must be in the south, I guess. It will be interesting to try this later on today and see how that works out.
All these years later, courtesy you and LuLa, I have the technique!
Thanks!
Rob
-
If you are in the UK and want to know what time it is in India then simply hold your watch upside down.
LOL! There actually is a way this works in the Southern Hemisphere, but as I’ve never been there, I don’t have a clue how it works.
-
LOL! There actually is a way this works in the Southern Hemisphere, but as I’ve never been there, I don’t have a clue how it works.
Reverse everything: point 12:00 on the watch at the sun and then midway between there and the hour hand is north. Or if your only timepiece is a phone, use the compass app.
(Also, you need to stand on your head to see the man in the moon)
-
I have seen a few places reporting that Sony has overtaken Nikon to claim the 2nd spot in camera sales. I don’t know if that is in terms of number of cameras shipped or revenue. I suppose no big surprise to anyone following trends in this business sector. Also doesn’t speak to profitability although Nikon has posted substantial though lower losses than was predicted. At least some good news there.
It also doesn’t mean Sony cameras are inherently superior to Nikon although Sony is my choice for several reasons.
-
I have seen a few places reporting that Sony has overtaken Nikon to claim the 2nd spot in camera sales. I don’t know if that is in terms of number of cameras shipped or revenue. I suppose no big surprise to anyone following trends in this business sector. Also doesn’t speak to profitability although Nikon has posted substantial though lower losses than was predicted. At least some good news there.
It also doesn’t mean Sony cameras are inherently superior to Nikon although Sony is my choice for several reasons.
I just read a piece indicating Sony is No. 1 in full frame camera sales ( both mirrorless and DSLR combined. ) That's a huge feat in a relatively short period of time.
-
I just read a piece indicating Sony is No. 1 in full frame camera sales ( both mirrorless and DSLR combined. ) That's a huge feat in a relatively short period of time.
I have seen this one:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7869207001/sony-overtakes-canon-and-nikon-to-dominate-the-full-frame-camera-market-in-japan
Sony basically dominates Fixed lens, APSC, and FF categories, in Japan.
-
I just read a piece indicating Sony is No. 1 in full frame camera sales ( both mirrorless and DSLR combined. ) That's a huge feat in a relatively short period of time.
It certainly is. I know people say that Sony was clever to move to mirrorless so quickly but in a very real sense Sony virtually created the sector. Everyone else is playing Sony’s game. Tough position for them to be in.
-
I just read a piece indicating Sony is No. 1 in full frame camera sales ( both mirrorless and DSLR combined. ) That's a huge feat in a relatively short period of time.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/internet-declares-sony-the.html
Sony makes very nice mirrorless cameras and their innovation is to be praised. But as Thom clearly demonstrate, these claims are very partial. As discussed many times, these stats don’t take into account the 2 key retailers in Japan Yodobashi and Map. I have in fact never bought any photographic equipment from any of the stores they collect data from.
This being said, eye AF on the a9 II works great. I am a lot less impressed by the a7rIV that is probably just a tiny bit better than the Z7. I’ll probably sell it as soon as I find time. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/internet-declares-sony-the.html
Sony makes very nice mirrorless cameras and their innovation is to be praised. But as Thom clearly demonstrate, these claims are very partial. As discussed many times, these stats don’t take into account the 2 key retailers in Japan Yodobashi and Map. I have in fact never bought any photographic equipment from any of the stores they collect data from.
This being said, eye AF on the a9 II works great. I am a lot less impressed by the a7rIV that is probably just a tiny bit better than the Z7. I’ll probably sell it as soon as I find time. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Every piece of news I've read about how well the Z cameras are selling have been disappointments...even coming from the horses mouth, corporate Nikon. You can slice and dice anyway you like...but can you show me some positive figures on the Z camera sales.
-
Every piece of news I've read about how well the Z cameras are selling have been disappointments...even coming from the horses mouth, corporate Nikon. You can slice and dice anyway you like...but can you show me some positive figures on the Z camera sales.
Where have I written that the Z is selling as much as Nikon hoped?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/internet-declares-sony-the.html
Sony makes very nice mirrorless cameras and their innovation is to be praised. But as Thom clearly demonstrate, these claims are very partial. As discussed many times, these stats don’t take into account the 2 key retailers in Japan Yodobashi and Map. I have in fact never bought any photographic equipment from any of the stores they collect data from.
This being said, eye AF on the a9 II works great. I am a lot less impressed by the a7rIV that is probably just a tiny bit better than the Z7. I’ll probably sell it as soon as I find time. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
https://www.bcnretail.com/market/detail/20191124_146544.html&SAR
-
I have no idea about and little interest in Nikon, Canon, Sony...camera sales.
Regarding my cameras, I'm happy to report increased keepers and 99% satisfaction since switching from my previous cameras. These are my meaningful figures.
Please, get a photographic life, dears.
-
I have no idea about and little interest in Nikon, Canon, Sony...camera sales.
Regarding my cameras, I'm happy to report increased keepers and 99% satisfaction since switching from my previous cameras. These are my meaningful figures.
Please, get a photographic life, dears.
Keith, for many, equipment, the newer the better, is the photographic life.
This makes the continuing ability to make new new stuff essential, so the future prospects of all of these businesses is paramount.
For myself, I hope Nikon flourishes, for along with Rollei, Hasselblad, Kodak and Ilford, I feel I owe them all my career. I feel a romantic attachment, even. Not that I have any wish to buy anything from any of them anymore.
;-)
-
Rob, as a former Hasselblad and Leica user I'm quite used to the naysayers and to the purveyors of impending doom: bless 'em.
;-)
-
I have no idea about and little interest in Nikon, Canon, Sony...camera sales.
Regarding my cameras, I'm happy to report increased keepers and 99% satisfaction since switching from my previous cameras. These are my meaningful figures.
Please, get a photographic life, dears.
If you don't care...why are you reading and in fact posting to a thread to do with camera sales?
-
If you don't care...why are you reading and in fact posting to a thread to do with camera sales?
I like having a giggle.
-
I have no idea about and little interest in Nikon, Canon, Sony...camera sales.
Regarding my cameras, I'm happy to report increased keepers and 99% satisfaction since switching from my previous cameras. These are my meaningful figures.
I still use a Nikon D850 for shooting in color or fast action. It's a great all around camera. However I don't use it much since I switched to using Gundlach Korona. Mine is the 5x7 and made with beautiful mahogany wood in 1925. I have state of the art lenses for it too: 1844 Horne Thornwait Petzval 1845 Ross Petzval, 1845 Secretans landscape lens, 1847 Voightlander. Mostly shoot wet plate with it but when I want something more up to date I shoot dry plates. The system is very flexible.
Kent in
-
I still use a Nikon D850 for shooting in color or fast action. It's a great all around camera. However I don't use it much since I switched to using Gundlach Korona. Mine is the 5x7 and made with beautiful mahogany wood in 1925. I have state of the art lenses for it too: 1844 Horne Thornwait Petzval 1845 Ross Petzval, 1845 Secretans landscape lens, 1847 Voightlander. Mostly shoot wet plate with it but when I want something more up to date I shoot dry plates. The system is very flexible.
Kent in
There are those here who would suggest that you'd be better off with a Sony.
;-)
-
There are those here who would suggest that you'd be better off with a Sony.
;-)
Well probably. I'll point out my Gundlach Korona is an MILC and has about a 100 year head start on Sony.
Kent in SD
-
... in a very real sense Sony virtually created the sector....
That’s a strange perspective. Sony has lately lead the sector, but clearly Panasonic created it, bringing its partner Olympus along with it. What Panasonic and Sony have in common is coming from the video and electronics world, where the know-how and resources are a natural fit for the more purely electronic world of mirrorless digital cameras.
Also: it seems natural that Canon and Nikon take a dip in sales as they make their late shift to EVF cameras, but they have a lot of momentum in things like lenses owned and available (SLR lenses now adapt well thanks to improving PDAF, despite the occasional adaptor-phobia), support services and “mind share”, so I see a good chance for rebounding.
Of course Nikon has hurt itself for unit sales and revenues in the short term by starting in a higher priced, far lower volume niche, but it seems to be moving (slowly) beyond that now, into the price range that continues to dominate ILC revenues.
-
I still use a Nikon D850 for shooting in color or fast action. It's a great all around camera. However I don't use it much since I switched to using Gundlach Korona. Mine is the 5x7 and made with beautiful mahogany wood in 1925. I have state of the art lenses for it too: 1844 Horne Thornwait Petzval 1845 Ross Petzval, 1845 Secretans landscape lens, 1847 Voightlander. Mostly shoot wet plate with it but when I want something more up to date I shoot dry plates. The system is very flexible.
Kent in
I prefer shooting with a dry sensor ;)
But i envy of your head start!
-
I think this guy sums up in one video all the things we have been discussing on why camera sales have declined.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1UagrnW4g
I found it interesting that he has two friends who are top notch professionals in Malaysia and are still using older DSLR's. The Nikon D700 and the Canon 5D Mark11. Why? Because, he says, they are good enough to produce outstanding results. Of course he outlines many other reasons including the rise of social media and the smartphone. Well worth a look. He also makes interesting statements about photography as art, even we don't agree with his views.
JR
-
I like having a giggle.
So you do one thing, and then preach its opposite. That is indeed giggle worthy:)
-
Yes, John, pretty much as several of us have pointed out, and been mildly chastised for so doing.
And exactly why I still have not "progressed" beyond my D700, and still use its older sister, the D200, far more.
However, as much as I agree with him, he, too, fails to suggest what the something new might be that we should rush out and photograph. Regarding posed or unposed street: the moral victory is catching shots on the fly, whereas the posed shots are always recognized for being the fake street that they inevitably have to be. Fake, because as we have always known - if around long enough - the myth has always been that good street depended on the fast, prescient eye, not on the ability to direct. Frankly, I think that most of all it depends on luck and the ability to track somebody, and recognize when they are about to step into an interesting location.
It precludes that Magnum guy who chases old ladies in the street and pokes a flash in their face; that's not being a great street photographer, that's being a great asshole.
Rob
-
It precludes that Magnum guy who chases old ladies in the street and pokes a flash in their face; that's not being a great street photographer, that's being a great asshole.
Well, I'm not going to necessarily disagree with you, but to his credit (Bruce Gilden's the name) he's not only limited to old ladies, he's also chased down Yakuza, Russian mafia and shot subjects I'm guessing neither you nor I would have been willing to ... :)
(https://magazin.lufthansa.com/content/uploads/2017/11/NYC7352-580x775.jpg)
(https://d2jv9003bew7ag.cloudfront.net/uploads/Bruce-Gilden-Picnic-with-Serge-Image-via-piotrekziolkowskicom.jpg)
*Edit:
Shot on Leica ..
Also,
Gilden on Magnum
https://www.magnumphotos.com/?s=Bruce+Gilden
Gilden on Brexit
https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/the-a-to-z-of-brexit/
-
So you do one thing, and then preach its opposite. That is indeed giggle worthy:)
Ta!
-
Yes, John, pretty much as several of us have pointed out, and been mildly chastised for so doing.
And exactly why I still have not "progressed" beyond my D700, and still use its older sister, the D200, far more.
However, as much as I agree with him, he, too, fails to suggest what the something new might be that we should rush out and photograph. Regarding posed or unposed street: the moral victory is catching shots on the fly, whereas the posed shots are always recognized for being the fake street that they inevitably have to be. Fake, because as we have always known - if around long enough - the myth has always been that good street depended on the fast, prescient eye, not on the ability to direct. Frankly, I think that most of all it depends on luck and the ability to track somebody, and recognize when they are about to step into an interesting location.
It precludes that Magnum guy who chases old ladies in the street and pokes a flash in their face; that's not being a great street photographer, that's being a great asshole.
Rob
When I was watching his video, I too said what is the alternative suggestion for photography? But at the end he did say, just follow what really matters to you. For pros, that is a somewhat different story. They need to do what is necessary to keep their business viable. As for street photography, I really think that is a dead genre, at least in the way that is depicted on You Tube. We live in a modern sophisticated and interconnected world, where even in remote places people are often wise to people with cameras. The world has changed. There is little reason to continue to try and replicate what past photographers did and were able to do. So called spontaneity, as you have often observed, is anything but. But why fight it. Recognize the world has changed and accept that we have to interact with people to take photos for the purpose of communicating something to an audience. Might as well interact and save yourself a lot of grief.
JR
-
I think this guy sums up in one video all the things we have been discussing on why camera sales have declined.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu1UagrnW4g
I found it interesting that he has two friends who are top notch professionals in Malaysia and are still using older DSLR's. The Nikon D700 and the Canon 5D Mark11. Why? Because, he says, they are good enough to produce outstanding results. Of course he outlines many other reasons including the rise of social media and the smartphone. Well worth a look. He also makes interesting statements about photography as art, even we don't agree with his views.
JR
I didn't get through all of Robin Wong's video yet, but I agree strongly with his talk of "camera sufficiency", and I would say even more specifically "sensor sufficiency", even for the great majority of professional photographers. (At ease Doug Peterson; I am talking here about "most" or "the great majority", not "all"! I know that some people want to count the pores and tiny flecks of make-up of on the faces of the underwear models on those bus-stop ads!)
On the other side of the equation, it seems to me that the IQ and camera performance needs of even a large proportion of professional photographers have not increased much since the film era. The one viewing situation I see much of where images get viewed "larger" than with film, and thus need to sustain closer scrutiny, is on computer screens and big-screen TVs, now reaching 4K or even 5K — and that is still in the realm of almost every recent ILC, at least from 20MP up.
(Do any actual professional photographers care to comment?!)
Balance that with the fact that sensor IQ from almost any recent ILC easily surpasses 35mm film and is into medium format territory (by my reckoning, the 56mm frame width of color roll film is good for about 5K to 6K across, so in the realm of 20-24MP sensors), and we have reached the point where even modestly priced recent ILCs, when paired with good enough lenses, can handle a large proportion of professional work, including a chunk of what needed medium format film rather than 35mm.
Maybe that means we are headed for the far slower update cadence of film cameras, or even slower: remember the gentle rate at which Nikon's high-end AF SLRs advanced from F4 to F5 to F6? And remember when many amateur SLR owners basically bought one for a lifetime, or replaced it only when it broke down after several decades?
One little bright spot for camera makers: electronic devices like digital cameras are unlikely to have the lifetime durability of a basic film-eating SLR. For one thing, the memory cards for my first few digital cameras are now obsolete!
-
I didn't get through all of Robin Wong's video yet, but I agree strongly with his talk of "camera sufficiency", and I would say even more specifically "sensor sufficiency", even for the great majority of professional photographers. (At ease Doug Peterson; I am talking here about "most" or "the great majority", not "all"! I know that some people want to count the pores and tiny flecks of make-up of on the faces of the underwear models on those bus-stop ads!)
On the other side of the equation, it seems to me that the IQ and camera performance needs of even a large proportion of professional photographers have not increased much since the film era. The one viewing situation I see much of where images get viewed "larger" than with film, and thus need to sustain closer scrutiny, is on computer screens and big-screen TVs, now reaching 4K or even 5K — and that is still in the realm of almost every recent ILC, at least from 20MP up.
(Do any actual professional photographers care to comment?!)
Balance that with the fact that sensor IQ from almost any recent ILC easily surpasses 35mm film and is into medium format territory (by my reckoning, the 56mm frame width of color roll film is good for about 5K to 6K across, so in the realm of 20-24MP sensors), and we have reached the point where even modestly priced recent ILCs, when paired with good enough lenses, can handle a large proportion of professional work, including a chunk of what needed medium format film rather than 35mm.
Maybe that means we are headed for the far slower update cadence of film cameras, or even slower: remember the gentle rate at which Nikon's high-end AF SLRs advanced from F4 to F5 to F6? And remember when many amateur SLR owners basically bought one for a lifetime, or replaced it only when it broke down after several decades?
One little bright spot for camera makers: electronic devices like digital cameras are unlikely to have the lifetime durability of a basic film-eating SLR. For one thing, the memory cards for my first few digital cameras are now obsolete!
The professional photographer market isn't what will make or break the photo industry. They are just a blip when taking in the entire photo industry and the professional market continues to struggle. It's the consumer photographer that will determine how successful the photography market will end up...and consumers love new releases on a very regular basis. Phones come out every year and sell in droves. We'll see AI drive the future of the camera market which has driven the phone camera market.
-
The professional photographer market isn't what will make or break the photo industry. They are just a blip when taking in the entire photo industry and the professional market continues to struggle. It's the consumer photographer that will determine how successful the photography market will end up...and consumers love new releases on a very regular basis. Phones come out every year and sell in droves. We'll see AI drive the future of the camera market which has driven the phone camera market.
The pro market never was the driver; what it could do, however, through advertising during the era when some fashion photographers were revered like rock stars, was influence amateur interest towards particular brands. Olympus did a lot of that kind of advertising, using people like Bailey, Lichfield et al. as influencers, proving the point that the internet didn't invent them at all.
As the glamour has been pretty much stripped from such photographers today, I'm not sure whether hitching their name to your brand makes any real difference to your sales. You'd probably do better with a guy who kicks balls for a living.
Rob
-
As the glamour has been pretty much stripped from such photographers today, I'm not sure whether hitching their name to your brand makes any real difference to your sales. You'd probably do better with a guy who kicks balls for a living.
Which tends to confirm the importance of Yakuza pictures？
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Which tends to confirm the importance of Yakuza pictures？
Cheers,
Bernard
Forget gangs, think teams.
:-)
-
The pro market never was the driver; what it could do, however, through advertising during the era when some fashion photographers were revered like rock stars, was influence amateur interest towards particular brands. Olympus did a lot of that kind of advertising, using people like Bailey, Lichfield et al. as influencers, proving the point that the internet didn't invent them at all.
As the glamour has been pretty much stripped from such photographers today, I'm not sure whether hitching their name to your brand makes any real difference to your sales. You'd probably do better with a guy who kicks balls for a living.
Rob
Oh yes we've seen actors and sports stars being used as the mannequin dummies in commercials in the recent past.
-
The professional photographer market isn't what will make or break the photo industry. They are just a blip when taking in the entire photo industry and the professional market continues to struggle. It's the consumer photographer that will determine how successful the photography market will end up...and consumers love new releases on a very regular basis. Phones come out every year and sell in droves. We'll see AI drive the future of the camera market which has driven the phone camera market.
Agreed! My talk about recent sensors being sufficient “ _even_ for the great majority of professional photographers” is to imply that even more so are they sufficient for the overwhelming majority of interchangeable lens camera users, including that far larger but shrinking “consumer ILC” market.
So substantial shrinkage in sales volume is inevitable even if phone cameras did not exist, and minimising the losses will depend on offering improvements in other aspects. AI as you say is one; easy online sharing and quick basic editing is another; smaller, lighter kit could help too, while still offering lenses with a clear advantage in reach and speed over “phone-sized” lenses ...